Share this story

Long Beach, California—T. Boone Pickens is an energy financier who made a name for himself by becoming an advocate for wind power. But in the face of the changing energy landscape in the US, he's now pushing what he calls an "alternative alternative energy plan." It's not wind, and not solar, but Pickens at least has something the United States utterly lacks: an actual plan. And his plan is one that that puts the US first, which, unsurprisingly, was a polarizing view at the ever-globally minded TED Conference.

Pickens set the stage for his US-first argument by describing what has happened over the last 40 years as "the greatest transfer of wealth form one group to another group in history." How much? According to Pickens, the US has seen more than $7 trillion of wealth transferred out of the US economy into OPEC nations since 1976. How did this come to be?

In 1912, as Pickens tells it, our country was facing an energy crisis. We were considering crude oil, whale blubber, and coal as possible ways to power our future. We needed something that was cheap, and we didn't care where we bought it. Our society chose crude oil, and to this day oil remains at the center of American energy consumption. The problem, of course, is that crude oil is no longer cheap. Some might also note that crude oil has a tremendously negative effect on our environment, but Pickens did not bother to talk about that.

One hundred years after our last transformational energy crisis, Pickens said we must decide what we are going to use in the future, and commit to a plan. We know our needs: something that's cleaner and cheaper than crude oil. But Pickens would also insist that it needs to be domestic. "And we have that," he said. "It's natural gas." In fact, "we are overwhelmed with natural gas."

But our access to natural gas is not the only thing to recommend it. Crude oil has many hidden costs. No, we're not talking about climate effects (Pickens didn't address climate in his talk, either). Rather, he points to the US's self-appointed role as the world's "oil police," an expense that is truly massive. Consider this: there are 12 supercarrier class aircraft carriers on Earth. The US has 11 of them, and China is building one. Why does the US have so many? Just look where they congregate when not in American waters: the Middle East.

Pickens noted that the US uses 25 percent of the world's daily consumption of oil each day, to the tune of 20 million barrels. Twelve million of those originate from outside the United States. And all of this power for only four percent of the world's population. The number two consumer of oil is the Chinese, who use half what the US uses (10 million), even though they have five times the population of the United States.

But China is doing things about energy that we are not. China has a transportation and energy plan aimed at making sure the country can meet its needs and sustain economic growth (Including fuel efficiency standards for vehicles that dwarf those in the US). Here in the US, we have no plan—we're the worst off by far, and yet we have no national plan. Pickens finds this astonishingly unwise.

The supply isn't the only concern with oil, either. "The days of cheap oil are over," Pickens notes, but it has little to do with scarcity. The price of oil set by OPEC, by the Saudis, has little to do with the cost of that oil. What we pay for oil from the Saudis has much more to do with the Saudis' social spending commitments in their own country. That is, most of what we're paying for is making Saudi Arabia meet its financial and social obligations.

While this unprecedented wealth transfer is underway, we are sitting on massive amounts of natural gas. In terms of energy equivalents to barrels of oil, Pickens claims that the US has at least 3 times what the Saudis have. Given the fact that crude oil prices will only increase over time, he said it's time to commit to a plan. Even if we don't yet know what the full solution to our energy needs will be, we can at least begin to build a bridge that is headed simultaneously toward the future and away from the past.

Pickens argues that natural gas is the perfect "bridge fuel" that can begin to lessen our dependency on oil, holding us over until the next energy crisis. A first step would be to convert the 8 million heavy trucks in the US to run on natural gas. Then we turn to other aspects of the transportation system. The goal, he argues, should be to move closer and closer to independence from oil. "We have to get on our own resources in America," Pickens pleas. "It is costing us a billion dollars a day for oil," and we are grossly overpaying for it.

Although Pickens never explicitly says so, it is clear that he is less concerned about the effects on climate that burning fossil fuels present. In fact, at one point, he joked that he'll be long dead by the time the problem becomes truly critical (nevermind that many would argue that it already is). "Natural gas is the bridge fuel; I don't have to worry about the bridge to where at my age," he chuckled. Without doubt, Pickens' biggest concern is that we simply stop giving our wealth away to OPEC and others.

This isn't Pickens' first foray into the future of energy, but for what it's worth, he is willing to put his money where his mouth is. The famous oilman did not hesitate to mention that he had lost $150 million on wind farm energy initiatives when price of natural gas fell by a third.

Although most of the TED audience would agree with Pickens that any plan would be better than our current approach, not everyone was comfortable with his "bridge to I-don't-know-where" view, or his willingness to punt climate issues and questions about fracking's impact on future generations. Perhaps more significantly, TED talks have pretty consistently focused on solving humanity's problems as a whole. Pickens' us-versus-them, US-first view of the energy landscape was unique and perhaps jarring. And it was perfect for TED.

Share this story

Ken Fisher
Ken is the founder & Editor-in-Chief of Ars Technica. A veteran of the IT industry and a scholar of antiquity, Ken studies the emergence of intellectual property regimes and their effects on culture and innovation. Emailken@arstechnica.com//Twitter@kenfisher

"Perhaps more significantly, TED talks have pretty consistently focused on solving humanity's problems as a whole."

This tends to be exactly my problem with TED talks, and I've seen enough to be unimpressed (over a dozen). The scope of many talks is so wide that they offer no practical advice or solutions whatsoever. There's a lot of "oooh, this is a big problem we have to do something about this" kind of feeling generation, but without practical solutions, it leads to wasted momentum. I, for one, am glad to hear that there are some TED talks that focus on pragmatism, especially regarding important problems (the ones where they're too important NOT to be pragmatic).

And yeah, he doesn't need to address the climate. He gave a one-of-a-kind talk, I'm sure. I bet there were dozens of speakers that addressed the climate.

Also worth noting, on the fracking front, there is new technology in the works to use liquid propane as the fracking fluid, rather than water. This would effectively eliminate the water polution caused by disposing of the used fracking fluid, as well as shorten/eliminate the need to flare off the well for a while after the frac job is complete. Ill see if i can find a link.

*There are several studies regarding the total environmental impact of hybrids and EVs, if you count in the costs of mining and refining the rare elements required in the first place, and the hybrids don't come off all that great. Quite aside from functional issues like making really shitty work or hauling vehicles.

Even if Pickens were the world's biggest environmentalist, the simple fact is that very few people (Americans at least) want to devote the economic resources needed for what is perceived by many as a "feel good, hippie friendly" approach to energy. I know people who literally can't be bothered to put the can in the recycling bin even when the recycling bin is right next to the trash bin.

Money is the driver of all things. If there's a solution to be had, the way to sell it is to emphasize the impact it will have on wallets. That's the only way it will get done. The $64,000,000,000,000 question is whether it will get done soon enough or too late.

We use the most oil, we use the most energy, we have the most cars. We have to focus on ourselves and reduce our carbon footprint, reliance on importation of fuels, etc, because we are the cause of one of the largest effects on the global issue.

Solving the pollution issue by helping natives burn gas instead of dung isn't going to make a dent in the global emissions total.

That is where global warming comes in! The amount of natural gas required to heat homes will go down over time as average global temperates go up a degree or two.

Has any researcher crunched the numbers to see what the effect of less burning NG or oil for heating because of global warming will do to the global carbon footprint? How does it affect the predicted warming curve over the next few decades? While they are crunching those numbers, how does the longer growing season due to warmer average yearly temperature affect global plant carbon retention?

jimstrnd wrote:

It sounds good on the surface to do natural gas. However, what will the long-term consequences be for current natural-gas users, i.e., people who heat their homes using natural gas. It will get far more expensive, as use of natural-gas goes up, right? Also, do we have ANY guarrantees of non-bottle-knecking of processing occurring, as we currently do for gasoline? Granted, I did NO research on this before I spoke, so if there is no processing that has to occur to natural-gas, then that's a moot point, so cut me some slack.

How could you write a piece about T. Boone Pickens and not point out that the man is a billionaire oil tycoon and is sitting on a ton of natural gas? You can't trust a word he says--of course he wants everyone to rush out and do everything with gas; he stands to make a shit ton of money.

I described him as an energy financier. I think that's plain English around here for "guy with wide investments in energy." I didn't see any point in deploying an ad hominem attack against his argument.

Also, that video was fucking cool. First we're gonna drop cars. Now we'll roast it over an open flame. Next we'll bring out the dynamite. Now we're gonna fire a .357 at it. What's left? Oh yeah, how about this AR-15 with armor piercing rounds?

Nothing like earthquakes in Oklahoma from fracking. Natural gas is hardly the answer. The price of oil is largely controlled by speculators on Wall Street. Not OPEC. I know they are a fun to blame stuff on because their membership consists of "enemy" countries.The majority of our oil consumption comes from domestic sources. Our top import location is overwhelmingly Canada. Followed in a distant second and third by Saudi Arabia and Mexico. So OPEC has very little to do with our oil prices. Gas and other fuels are the US top exports. We need it so bad that we sell it overseas.The problem with short term solutions is they tend to become long term addictions. I don't think there is a perfect solution, but we need to find something that is cleaner in all aspects from production to use. Electric cars are probably the best way to go. We just need to work on cleaner electricity production through investing more and more in solar, wind, and nuclear power.

I think coverting over to natural gas is a great plan and is far better than continuing to rely on oil and green technology that isn't just there yet when it comes to efficiency and cost.

A switch over to green technology won't happen instantly and we don't need a bridge to it, just a ladder up and natural gas makes alot of sense for being the next rung up. Plus it would help the economy by creating a ton of domestic jobs.

It's actually pretty easy to retrofit a car to run on natural gas. When I was down in the Dominican Republic in 1999, many cars were running on natural gas, and had gas tanks just sitting behind their back seats, with a hose running under the car. It seemed to work pretty well. Obviously these weren't carefully designed retrofits, they had all done it themselves.

*There are several studies regarding the total environmental impact of hybrids and EVs, if you count in the costs of mining and refining the rare elements required in the first place, and the hybrids don't come off all that great. Quite aside from functional issues like making really shitty work or hauling vehicles.

^ bingo

+25434 internets

Not correct. The "several studies" usually amount to the CNW Prius/Hummer "Dust to Dust", which was really, really dubious (eg, it assumed that the Prius would only be on the road for 100K miles versus 300K for the Hummer, it ignored changes in mining technology, etc).

Wrong too is "Hybrids can't haul". Diesel-electric locomotives certainly haul. GM's two-mode hybrid system was perfect for hauling, being sourced from GM/Allison's bus transmissions. Hybrid power actually works very well, what with allowing very low final drive, little mechanical wear and lots of torque from a standstill.

Wow we get it, you're concerned about the environment. However that's not related to the subject of your story. I get that you have an opinion, but can you at least put it in its own section after the end of the article that reports on the facts? The nagging about climate/environment is really annoying. I agree with your thoughts on the environment, but your editorial opinion shouldn't be included in every paragraph.

Even if Pickens were the world's biggest environmentalist, the simple fact is that very few people (Americans at least) want to devote the economic resources needed for what is perceived by many as a "feel good, hippie friendly" approach to energy. I know people who literally can't be bothered to put the can in the recycling bin even when the recycling bin is right next to the trash bin.

Maybe they know that the contents of the recycling bin and the trash bin both end up at the same transfer station or landfill.

How could you write a piece about T. Boone Pickens and not point out that the man is a billionaire oil tycoon and is sitting on a ton of natural gas? You can't trust a word he says--of course he wants everyone to rush out and do everything with gas; he stands to make a shit ton of money.

I described him as an energy financier. I think that's plain English around here for "guy with wide investments in energy." I didn't see any point in deploying an ad hominem attack against his argument.

How's putting perspective on his perspective ad hominem?

The guy's arguing for using something he controls. It stops being an argument at that point and starts being a sales pitch.

My ass.The AMERICAN COMPANIES producing the fuel made us a net exporter. I'm sure EPA standards provided some incentives, but to ignore the actual Companies workers, management, capital investiture, R&D, supply chain optimizations etc etc (ie the MULTITUDE of things it takes to run a high capacity business) and act like the EPA "did it" is disingenuous to the point of lying.

My city just installed a compressed natural gas station for its bus fleet and for public use. The cost is $2.59 a gallon. So, that got me thinking...Bear in mind, I am thermodynamically conservative, not fiscally conservative. After sharing this with my boss we both ruefully observed: Its cheap and easy to throw away ~40% of the energy in natural gas by simply compressing it using existing compressor stations and offering it for sale. Especially when we estimate its about $0.36 a gallon before marketing and shipping costs. And so given: 1/(1-0.36) = $1.56; throwing away $0.56 to make $1 of CNG fuel to sell for $2.59 is trivial. Whereas, reforming it to a fuel while saving ~20% of the original fuel and making a superior fuel is extremely! capital intensive (cost per GJ is 4x cost for oil refinery) and in general a fiscal conservative would rather take that low hanging fruit rather than tie up capital to make a better fuel for the same price. That being said. Here are my thoughts...

The merits of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) compared to reforming the natural gas to DiMethylEther (DME)by Mr Bill on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 12:22am ·

So they are pushing super high pressure natural gas (methane) for use in cars and buses! I think this is crazy compared to making a liquid fuel from methane. Methane near the critical point, has a critical temperature of minus 82.7C, critical pressure of 46 bars (675 psi), critical density of 161 kg/m3 and energy density of 8.92 GJ/m3. Supercritical fluids loose density rapidly with elevation of temperature such that to reach close to the critical density at room temperature methane requires compression to 200–248 bar (2900–3600 psi).

To isothermally compress a cubic meter of methane (0.55kg) at 1 bar; to 200 bar (20Mpa = 2900 psi) requires 2.478 ln(Pa/Pb) kilojoules (kJ) at 25 °C (298 K), per mole, (about 1487 kJ/m3@1bar). To compress 88.3 m3 methane to 1 m3 at 200 bars (160.6 kg = 10,010 moles) requires at least 131322 kJ. This first approximation not taking into account thermodynamic work efficiency, is about 14.7% of the energy content of the methane. However, natural gas or another fossil fuel must be consumed by an engine, a turbine, or made into steam to generate electricity to do the work of compression. So, we must factor in the 40% thermodynamic efficiency of such a work process. So, now that 14.7% of the energy of the natural gas needs to be adjusted upwards. So 14.7% divided by the thermodynamic efficiency of 0.4 gives us the result; an energy equivalent to 36.75% of the natural gas must be consumed to compress the gas.

It would be a true liquid at 5.1 bars (75 psi). Its easy to stay below the critical temperature of DME, which is 126.9C (260F) as compared to propane's 96.6C (206F); and liquid DME has an energy density of 21.2 GJ/m3. The same fuel tank could hold twice the energy and it could be stored in an LPG tank which are made to hold up to 22 bar (319 psi). In North America, typical diesel cetane values are 42-45, in Europe cetane values are ~55 (higher is better). DME has a cetane of >55. Natural gas has a cetane of 2. On the other hand DME reforms to methanol (which has a 110+ octane), quite easily (think module in car). DME is also the perfect portable fuel for fuel cells and cooking.

My calculations based on thermodynamic formation energies and an engineering model adapted to a spreadsheet, suggests the natural gas can be converted to dimthyl ether with an efficiency ~80-83%, that is a loss of ~17-20% of the energy content. Its a catalyzed chemical reforming reaction and the energy lost as heat is used to run the reforming plant. Now one has a liquid fuel that is arguably safer and easier to handle and less costly and more efficient to transport. Thus, It is obvious that reforming natural gas to DME is far superior to compressing the gas for use as a transportation fuel.

Fossil fuels of any type are a dead end technology. We've already seen a sample of how not knowing enough about the total effect of consuming oil has had on the environment. The answer is not pursuing another fossil fuel and with a new, possibly very destructive method of acquiring it (i.e. fracking).

If natural gas is to be a bridge for what we are currently capable of doing within a reasonable amount of time, the only realistic end would be nuclear. Thorium reactors should be the end goal, with electric vehicles and better battery tech. If proper resources are allocated now, it could be made a reality in a few decades.

If we want to have an energy secure future, then let us remove the regulatory burdens (an regulatory risks, for that matter) for producing the energy. Cheap energy means efficient energy. If it's cheaply produced, then it means that it has been produced in an efficient way. I people prefer to eat "organic" food, let them do so. If they are willing to pay 5x as much for wind energy, let them do so. But let's establish an actual incentive to invest in energy production!

...Thorium reactors should be the end goal, with electric vehicles and better battery tech. If proper resources are allocated now, it could be made a reality in a few decades.

A minor quibble -- using _any_ single resource as the end goal is asking for problems, No monoculture is sustainable, be it soybeans, feed corn, crude oil, or nukes. Distributed generation, using multiple sources, is a more resilient, scalable, and doable approach. Use thorium reactors -- sure. but don't forget wind, solar, biomass, tidal, geothermal and all the other potentials. multiple breakage points are not a problem, if their individual impact is limited. sinlge sourcing is part of what got us into this.

My ass.The AMERICAN COMPANIES producing the fuel made us a net exporter. I'm sure EPA standards provided some incentives, but to ignore the actual Companies workers, management, capital investiture, R&D, supply chain optimizations etc etc (ie the MULTITUDE of things it takes to run a high capacity business) and act like the EPA "did it" is disingenuous to the point of lying.

You could just as easily say the AMERICAN PEOPLE not using as much fuel made the US a net exporter. If everyone had taken to driving diesel-powered hummers those companies wouldn't have been able to export so much. Damn hippies and their high MPG cars.

You can hate the guy, but Pickens is right in that we don't have much of an energy plan, and that we should increase our use of local resources.I hate to see every single alternative energy development stopped because of a lack of political consistent and persistent will: When solar and wind start to bubble up, cheap oil (years ago) and now cheap natural gas and Chinese solar panels caused many of these start-ups to bankrupt, like Solyndra which cost us half a billion dollars. Every fluctuation should not impact the long term plan. That is, if we had one and if the government actively supported it.Instead, all these start-ups are left subject to the "free" market of capitalism and the whims of economical or political currents.

Still, natural gas is not as simple as he makes it, and it's cheap mostly because the real environmental and health costs are not included but paid separately by the tax-payer. That you could even put a cost on these issues is another matter.Given the controversy on fracking, which I assume 90% of the TED audience is aware of, the least Pickens should have done is mention and assess the issue. It's like talking about nuclear power while ignoring the radioactive storage problem.

Here's a better idea. Rather than "A" bridge, how about "many" bridges. The energy problems we have are totally solvable, and we don't need a single drop of oil to do it. In fact, it would seem, since we will need oil for many other things in the future (lubricants and production of polymers and such), that it's stupid to continue to piss it away on inefficient energy release mechanisms, not to mention the monetary waste it is at the moment, and whatever effect it has on the environment.

Simply put, start transitioning our energy systems to wind AND solar AND geothermal AND tidal AND nuclear AND hydroelectric, with safety and growth redundancies on each, with a smattering of natural gas, and even a bit of coal/oil where it's NEEDED (as in applications that require quick delivery energy, even if ti's inefficient).

Why were are so stupid to think we need "A" solution, astounds me, but I guess the best way for rich people to get richer is to have one thing to invest in, rather than many, because it's easier to control and corner one market, and since people are generally pretty dumb, it's easy to make grossly incorrect statements that we can't do this or that "competing thing", because people simply don't understand it well enough to question it.

The problem is certainly NOT our ability to do it, it's our willingness and greed combined with the ignorance of the general public.

Actual question - I know in Australia it is reasonably common to see cars running on LPG (private conversion kits, taxis and busses, etc). How does that differ from the Natural Gas you would find coming over your mains line at home?Piggybacking the existing distribution system alone would be a massive benefit if compatible: less tanker trucks in domestic areas, etc.

I know that petrol -> LPG is a reasonably simple conversion. How does NG compare?

My uncle has a favourite tale where he ran out of fuel in the bush (literally out the back of Bourke). He got to the next gas station by putting a LPG cylinder in his lap in the driver seat and feeding the hose through the firewall directly into the carburettor.Take with appropriate salt. But cool story bro, at least

Obviously USA could earn even more by using less, and thus exporting more, but I don't see the wealth transfer.

yeah, US nay be exporting more finished fuel product, thanks to cheap natural gas to power the cracking of crude, but we're still importing the crude aren't we?

Yes, we still import the crude oil. The linked article is only discussing refined fuel import/export. According to the EIA (which is the source for the WSJ article) net petroleum product imports are -1,427 (thousands of barrels per day), so yes we have a net export of the *products*. Net crude oil imports are 9,150 though. So yeah, the giant sucking sound of petrodollars leaving the US is still going strong. Hinton mis-understood the WSJ article.

I like to be reminded that our elected leadership totally blows while spending all their time debating whether or not we should invoke a national anti-condom campaign because they prayed and god whispered in their ear that he hates us having sex unless it results in heterosexual offspring.

It's OK if we're last in the world as long as we all pray to a christain god and don't touch ourselves.

We're so screwed.

LMAO. If you think religion or even religious hangups is what is causing our various levels of governments to not work, boy are you deluded. A quick hint, the things that are fouling up our government are much more "worldly" forces.

...Thorium reactors should be the end goal, with electric vehicles and better battery tech. If proper resources are allocated now, it could be made a reality in a few decades.

A minor quibble -- using _any_ single resource as the end goal is asking for problems, No monoculture is sustainable, be it soybeans, feed corn, crude oil, or nukes. Distributed generation, using multiple sources, is a more resilient, scalable, and doable approach. Use thorium reactors -- sure. but don't forget wind, solar, biomass, tidal, geothermal and all the other potentials. multiple breakage points are not a problem, if their individual impact is limited. sinlge sourcing is part of what got us into this.

Unless there are some insane breakthroughs in tech, we will struggle to get 10% of our energy needs met by renewable sources of energy. I agree we should invest in them, but when you talk about the problem you have to be cognizant that 90% of our energy needs will have to come from something else.